Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The idolizing of celebrities is not new. Since the beginning of civilisation people have watched the rich, famous and beautieful with great interest. It helps us sort the "social hierarchy" and find our place in it. In our multi-medial times the obsessions can grow bigger because the exposure has grown bigger. Not only the exposure of celebrities and details about their lives, the criticism and display of the negative following effects has grown as well.

The definition of celebrity and fame have changed strongly. The celebrities of antiquity like Cleopatra reached their status by being born into it. It was out of reach for the ordinary people. In the more recent past celebrities like Mozart obtained their status by devoting their entire life and efford into their careers. Nowadays fame and celebrity are supposedly reachable for everybody. An ordinary girl can be discovered on the street and be made into a supermodel. Those who do not have the benefit of a certain set of genes, talent or luck still have the choice to behave outrageous or date the right people. So what is the value of celebrity when it`s supposedly available for everybody? The commercial value of this collective dream can be measured in billions of dollars who are spent for lifestyle, fashion, beauty and diet products.

A distinction between same-sex idols and other-sex idols is necessary.

Girls study female celebrities and models closely because they seek orientation. According to the “Tabula Rasa” theory we are born as empty sheets and the development of a personality is a process of multiple selective choices, decisions and the experiences that result from them. But how does a young, inexperienced person find orientation in a global world where not only country-borders but also borders of traditional values, religions and other restrictions have fallen?

It`s easy to turn to somebody who is omnipresent. Humans tend to like what they "know" and since we are exposed to celebrities all the time it`s only natural that they are included into learning-processes and choices. The fact that celebrities like Paris Hilton are only displayed because they feed the public`s hunger for sensation and easy stereotypes is ignored. Celebrity has exceeded substance.

It has never been easier to imitate celebrities. They bring out clothing lines, perfumes, fitness videos and everything else which -supposedly- makes us more like them. Imitation is the purest form of admiration, so girls will likely do as their role-models do. Be it practising yoga, Kabbalah or snorting cocaine on parties. The individual choices will not be made uncritically. It will be based upon cultural background, attitudes, level of self-confidence and multiple other aspects.

Humans do not only learn from first-hand experiences but also from what they see. Celebrity and the wealth, acceptance and love that supposedly come with it, are attractive things to aim for.

Paparazzi pictures who show flaws make celebrities seem more “real”, more like all of us. Still, they are not like us, they have “made it”. So a girl who dreams of the same archievment (or only a piece of it) is likely to think that if she`d buy the same jeans or starve to the same size she could reach the same as the celebrity. The problem is that the media claims to tell the whole story but doesn`t. Particles of celebrity-lifes are presented as the full picture but still every fan adds their own attributions, conclusions and individual translations for their own choices in life.

In the recent years another kind of admiration has developed due to the growing market for Mens Fashion; women (and gays) fancying male models. This is a "lust orientated" (meant in psychological, not sexual sense) phenomenon. Looking at pretty and perfect pictures is a good recreation in a difficult world. Male models are perfect canvas for projections and dreams because they have the advantage of not being famous. Their flaws or stupid actions can not be seen in Paparazzi pictures, they always appear as the perfect vision of somebody else. That`s what they`re paid for.

Apart from that, there is the aspect of evolution. The perfect body-measures of male models appeal to the "cavewomen in us". Since the beginning of mankind women have looked for the best genes for their children. It`s proven by science that attractivity is a matter of proportions. Men with a certain proportion between shoulders and hips appear attractive, meaning they`d make good genetic fathers for the next generation. A certain shape of the chin signalises fertility, long slim legs stand for a good runner to escape dangers and hunt down food, muscular arms show strength to fight and flawless skin shows a balanced hormonal level and health.

I picture a few women getting offended now, saying "No, I don`t want his babies, I just like his pictures." I say that underneath our masks of civilisation and learned behavioural codes we are wild animals who instinctively respond to what evolution installed in us.

Models and celebrities appeal to us for a variety of reasons but how much admiration is “too much”? Idolizing a celebrity or model is ok and "healthy" as long as it is just seen as an addition and inspiration to the own life. When real-life social contacts and friendships are maintained, focus on the own life issues (job, school, hobbies etc.) is given and the ability to emotionally commit to real-life persons is intact. Fandom that exceeds this level must be considered escapism or an attempt to fill an emotional void.

In conclusion we should not forget that if one copies "unhealthy" celebrity-behaviour it`s not the fault of the celebrity but a free descision and the only fault is to seek in the acting person`s personality.

And hey, celebrities are probably not that different from us. The only difference between them and us is that WE have made them celebrities.